In a hearing on Wednesday, the Senate economics references committee on consumer protection in the banking, insurance and financial sector found that, while the Sedgwick review shed light on the conflicted staff remuneration models implemented within banks to the detriment of customers, further investigation is needed into the staff performance management systems used.
Addressing the hearing, Finance Sector Union national secretary Julia Angrisano gave specific examples of high-pressure staff performance management systems used in banks.
Ms Angrisano referenced evidence given by a former ANZ employee relating to performance targets.
“Each week I am involved in a sales meeting where my sales performance is discussed in front of others and if my performance is assessed below par it can involve being told that I’m not trying hard enough or that if I don’t improve my results I will be placed on the bank’s performance management system,” Ms Angrisano quoted the banker as saying. “This negative feedback is routinely provided in front of my peers.”
Members regularly inform the FSU of threats from superiors to place them on performance management for not being on target, she said.
Following Ms Angrisano’s statement, the committee said that further investigation is warranted into the effects of performance management systems on poor customer selling behaviour by frontline staff.
“In relation to the Sedgwick review it seems that in relation to what you have just said, that Mr Sedgwick focusing on remuneration arrangements, commissions etc for frontline staff – that the review has really missed a most powerful driver of behaviour amongst frontline staff, which is performance management systems – which is what probably causes the greatest degree of concern and stress for your members,” a committee member said.
“It seems to me that there is a misalignment here in terms of what we need to look at to really get to grips with what is driving the behaviour of frontline staff.”
While Ms Angrisano acknowledged that the banks have until 2020 to implement recommendations from reviews like Sedgwick’s, she voiced member concern over a disconnect between executives and branch managers.
Ms Angrisano referenced the comments of one FSU member who said, “Each year NAB conducts its employee feedback survey. In a recent survey it was found that there was an overwhelming negative response to the question as to whether NAB acted with integrity.
“Rather than acknowledging the views expressed by employees, NAB just sent around regional management to explain to us that perhaps we just misunderstood the question. In my experience senior managers are either unaware or disengaged with what’s actually happening within branches and the types of discussions that we are forced to have with our customers.”
Whats the point of this? ASIC are never going to take any action against senior management of the instos.
Anyone who worked for Westpac @ 2004-5 will remember ‘Westpac Way’ – meet on Monday and commit to a number of sales, meet on Wednesday and report progress, meet on Friday and report success (pat on the back) or failure (threatened with ‘Performance Management’). All in the name of client best interest? No, all in the name of maximising share of wallet and ensuring the bonus pool for senior management & executives. The fish rots from the head down.
Well, hello, has the penny just dropped on this one? As an ex-Financial Planning Manager for a Big 4 Bank, I can tell you I never had issues with the integrity and behaviours of my planners, the bank managers on the other hand were feral bunch of villains! Having witnessed bullying of branch staff ,as well as attempted bullying on my team, I am amazed that this is only now being recognised. The area managers are also part of the problem, they have knowingly turned a blind eye to disgraceful behaviours as the branch performance is good for there numbers! My manager would also not step up to the plate, as he needed to maintain his relationship, pathetic!
Well, you/your team got lucky then, because in addition to witnessing this type of interaction between branch staff and management, the Big 4 Bank financial planning team I was part of were subject to the exact same behaviour as described (with the even more damning overlay that planners doing the ‘wrong thing’ but getting the ‘right results’ were well rewarded).
Ex-Bank Planner, I was under pressure from my state manager to always have someone on Performance Management, and to ‘get the foot on the throat’. You are correct, poor behaviours were rewarded. I made the decision that my/our integrity was too valuable to cascade this down.
Missed or took zero notice. If there is ever going to be a meaningful outcome to all changes within this industry, the top of the tree that filters all the way down MUST be investigated as well. once that starts to happen- watch the transfers/resignations roll out. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that planners are pressured by management and management is guilty of cover ups. Time these guilty parties shared the ASIC “” love “” .
Yep. Further proof that trying to demonise a particular form of remuneration is completely missing the point. ASIC has been arbitrarily classifying some forms of remuneration as “conflicted”, while giving the green light to other forms. This is just a convenient way for ASIC officials, and now banking consultants, to exercise their bias.
All remuneration methods are potentially conflicted. Conflict cannot be controlled via remuneration methods. Potential conflict has to be actively managed through a Best Interests Duty.
Not surprised to hear this one bit – Banks have been ‘bashing’ their real ‘assets’ forever. Senior management just don’t understand the negative approach and culture that manifests over time, with the end result causing even lower productivity.